What class do celebrities fit into?

[Lolshevik]

As the title says, in what class would you place famous actors, musicians, Paris Hilton, etc? They do work - sort of - and most of them don't directly own any means of production, although due to their staggering incomes they easily could, if they wanted to.

In a pinch, I would describe them as the highest strata of the petit-bourgeoisie, but I feel like this is incorrect.

[RedAnarchist]

edit - ignore this.

[Misanthrope]

It is really hard to classify them all as a single social class.

[mel]

As the title says, in what class would you place famous actors, musicians, Paris Hilton, etc? They do work - sort of - and most of them don't directly own any means of production, although due to their staggering incomes they easily could, if they wanted to.

In a pinch, I would describe them as the highest strata of the petit-bourgeoisie, but I feel like this is incorrect.

If they easily "could", then they are bourgeois. Being bourgeois does not mean you do not work if you want to, it just means that you're in control of whether or not you have to. Members of the working class can not reasonably just decide to stop working, they are forced to sell their labor for a wage. Celebrities are not forced to sell their labor, they control whether or not they work, how often they do it, and they could easily divert their funds into industry.

[FreeFocus]

Most celebrities are rich. The rich cannot be working class, they aren't "exploited" in any meaningful sense and can't relate to the struggles of working class people. Moreover, rich people have an interest in making sure their dollars are worth something, they don't want to lose their riches obviously. Therefore, they will support governments taking steps to ensure the value of money, which includes imperialism, invasions, threats and other things.

[LOLseph Stalin]

they could easily divert their funds into industry.

And many do. There's several celebrities out there who create their own line of fashion, parfume, etc.

[mel]

Most celebrities are rich. The rich cannot be working class, they aren't "exploited" in any meaningful sense and can't relate to the struggles of working class people. Moreover, rich people have an interest in making sure their dollars are worth something, they don't want to lose their riches obviously. Therefore, they will support governments taking steps to ensure the value of money, which includes imperialism, invasions, threats and other things.

Making this a rich/poor distinction really doesn't do justice to the relationship. It's a way of buying into bourgeois "class" dynamics, and the only reason the "rich" aren't oppressed is because the "rich" don't have to sell their labor, which makes them actually a part of a different class.


And many do. There's several celebrities out there who create their own line of fashion, parfume, etc.

And the ones who don't, could...which was exactly my point :p

[FreeFocus]

Making this a rich/poor distinction really doesn't do justice to the relationship. It's a way of buying into bourgeois "class" dynamics, and the only reason the "rich" aren't oppressed is because the "rich" don't have to sell their labor, which makes them actually a part of a different class.

And the ones who don't, could...which was exactly my point :p

Spare me. The minutest percentage physically possible of the rich would probably support a socialist revolution. The reality is that the rich aren't oppressed or exploited. Period. You can get into hypotheticals or theory if you want, the fact remains the same. They may not be "bourgeois" in the 1800s Marxist definition, fine. Nonetheless, class dynamics aren't as simple 150 years later either.

[mel]

Spare me. The minutest percentage physically possible of the rich would probably support a socialist revolution. The reality is that the rich aren't oppressed or exploited. Period. You can get into hypotheticals or theory if you want, the fact remains the same. They may not be "bourgeois" in the 1800s Marxist definition, fine. Nonetheless, class dynamics aren't as simple 150 years later either.

My point is actually that looking at them as "rich" is meaningless, but the point is that anybody that you might consider honestly "rich" is either bourgeois or petit-bourgeois, in the traditional marxist sense, and it makes far more sense to look at them in relation to their class than their income level.

[Bright Banana Beard]

The professional isn't consider a class. The celebrities do not own the mean of production, but some are petit-bourgeois and some are worker, however a person like Donald Trump is a bourgeois.

[mel]

The professional isn't consider a class. The celebrities do not own the mean of production, but some are petit-bourgeois and some are worker, however a person like Donald Trump is a bourgeois.

Many of them do. Most who don't, could. All honest-to-goodness celebrities could maintain a reasonable standard of living even if they never worked another day in their life. I'd imagine that most, if not all of them, own a significant amount of stock and land.

[Lolshevik]

Well, the reason I was leaning towards seeing celebrities as petit-bourgeois is because in a very loose sense they are "independent producers", albeit astronomically well paid ones. There's also that comment, from Lenin I think, that the highest strata of the petit-bourgeoisie "live and think" like capitalists, which I feel is applicable.

Maybe it does make more sense to consider them bourgeois outright, though.

[NecroCommie]

Many celebrities possess alot of so called "intellectual property" which can be considered as a means of production within the capitalist system. Also the fact that many celebrities no longer have to work for a living means they are primarily capitalists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In my class "production line" (based on Marx's distinct class analysis in Capital), they fit in with those in the wage labour system who don't advance society's labour power or capabilities - between the underclasses on the one hand and the proletariat on the other. Call it a redefinition of "labour aristocracy," but it works.

As for the intellectual property question, that belongs to the studios. The biggest "intellectual property" owned by celebrities comes in the form of name recognition.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Many celebrities possess alot of so called "intellectual property" which can be considered as a means of production within the capitalist system.

This.

Intellectual property qualifies as capital, making its owners clear-cut members of the bourgeoisie. While many actors/actresses may not own any of it when they first start out, by the time they become celebrities, they most likely do.

[mel]

This.

Intellectual property qualifies as capital, making its owners clear-cut members of the bourgeoisie. While many actors/actresses may not own any of it when they first start out, by the time they become celebrities, they most likely do.

Really? I was relatively certain that most celebrities (at least actors/actresses) actually sign their intellectual property rights over to the studios. I would agree that most are clear-cut members of the bourgeoisie (because they have the capital to invest in finance, real estate or industry, and most take advantage of that), not because they retain intellectual property rights (most actors/actresses wouldn't) which are by and large sold under contract to the studios which hire them.

[Charles Xavier]

Depends on the celebrity. Some are working class however very well paid working class, some are capitalists. Hockey Players for example are workers.

[jake williams]

Hockey Players for example are workers.
Your Canada is showing.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Really? I was relatively certain that most celebrities (at least actors/actresses) actually sign their intellectual property rights over to the studios. I would agree that most are clear-cut members of the bourgeoisie (because they have the capital to invest in finance, real estate or industry, and most take advantage of that), not because they retain intellectual property rights (most actors/actresses wouldn't) which are by and large sold under contract to the studios which hire them.

If they're starting out, yes. But by the time they've reached the level of fame at which they would be called "celebrities", I would imagine they'd retain at least partial ownership (perhaps by being producers as well as actors/actresses), in the same manner that recording artists usually retain partial ownership over their records by gaining royalties from each sale. I could be wrong, though. I suppose I'd have to ask an actual celebrity.

BTW, I've been thinking, and I'm not sure that the ability to become a member of the bourgeoisie actually makes someone bourgeois. For example, say a former member of the proletariat somehow amassed enough capital to start a company, hire workers, and never work another day in his/her life. However, he/she refuses to do so because he/she is a socialist and believes to do so would be immoral. Instead, said person simply uses that capital to break free from the capitalists and starts working for himself/herself. Would you consider such a person bourgeois? I don't think I would. At worst, I'd label him/her petit-bourgeois.

[mel]

If they're starting out, yes. But by the time they've reached the level of fame at which they would be called "celebrities", I would imagine they'd retain at least partial ownership (perhaps by being producers as well as actors/actresses), in the same manner that recording artists usually retain partial ownership over their records by gaining royalties from each sale. I could be wrong, though. I suppose I'd have to ask an actual celebrity.

I'm not sure either, but I just assumed this wasn't generally the case. I'll look into it.


BTW, I've been thinking, and I'm not sure that the ability to become a member of the bourgeoisie actually makes someone bourgeois. For example, say a former member of the proletariat somehow amassed enough capital to start a company, hire workers, and never work another day in his/her life. However, he/she refuses to do so because he/she is a socialist and believes to do so would be immoral. Instead, said person simply uses that capital to break free from the capitalists and starts working for himself/herself. Would you consider such a person bourgeois? I don't think I would. At worst, I'd label him/her petit-bourgeois.

I think the vast majority of people with the ability to become a member of the bourgeoisie actually do in some capacity or another (they purchase real estate, start a company, or just invest their money) and if they don't stop working, they definitely don't have to work. Your theoretical rich socialist is just that, theoretical, and I don't know if any such person has ever existed, but if they did, their class position would be interesting.

[chimx]

They are union members who sell their labor for a wage, making them proletarian. Their wage, however, exceeds the value of their labor, making them part of a labor aristocracy.

[mel]

They are union members who sell their labor for a wage, making them proletarian. Their wage, however, exceeds the value of their labor, making them part of a labor aristocracy.

And for the ones who only ever sell their labor for a wage while the rest of their money sits in a box under their mattress, that may be true.

However, most actors and actresses have stock options, or own real estate, that would support them for the rest of their lives without ever working another day in their life.

I don't think that somebody works for a wage actually necessarily defines their class status. For example, if Bill Gates or Donald Trump just got up one day and started working in a factory, they wouldn't suddenly become proletarians because they are selling their labor for a wage, because they are bourgeoisie already, because they own private property. Most celebrities also own private property.

[Lolshevik]

Speaking of the labor aristocracy, where can I find the technical definition of this? I just know that it came from Lenin, and that he meant by it (I think), all the proletarians in first world countries who have a "cushion" in the form of super-exploitation of the third world proletariat.

A reworking of this definition would be inadequate to apply to celebrities. I'm leaning towards just considering them bourgeois outright, though chimx's comment on this gives me pause.

[chimx]

However, most actors and actresses have stock options, or own real estate, that would support them for the rest of their lives without ever working another day in their life.

Don't be so obtuse.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels invested in the stock market often after writing the Manifesto. I'm in a union that has a pension plan that makes money by investing in stocks. You have a savings account in a bank that makes interest by the bank investing your money and giving you a percent of the profit.

[chimx]

Speaking of the labor aristocracy, where can I find the technical definition of this? I just know that it came from Lenin, and that he meant by it (I think), all the proletarians in first world countries who have a "cushion" in the form of super-exploitation of the third world proletariat.

A reworking of this definition would be inadequate to apply to celebrities. I'm leaning towards just considering them bourgeois outright, though chimx's comment on this gives me pause.

The term was used before Lenin actually. Engels and Bakunin both used it, and I recall reading that Bakunin used it originally to refer to union leadership that profited from class struggle (that therefore had an interest in prolonging it).

Lenin expanded the definition of labor aristocracy, I believe (I need to go back and look at what Engels wrote to be honest), which included state bureaucrats, and some white-collar workers (a small but growing group 100 years ago) -- but he also wrote a lot on "worker parasitism," which shouldn't be confused with labor aristocracy.

If memory serves, labor aristocracy was expanded to by Lenin to mean those proletarians who benefit from capitalism by being compensated in excess of the value of their labor.

But the parasitism of workers in imperialist countries simply means that workers are exploited less. This is because imperialism is able to reap super-profit via workers that face greater exploitation than those of the imperialist nation. Lenin liked to refer to this as "bribing" workers of imperialist countries, but that is somewhat misleading. It means increasing the quality of living of workers to reduce class consciousness and class conflict -- but exploitation still exists.

[mel]

Don't be so obtuse.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels invested in the stock market often after writing the Manifesto. I'm in a union that has a pension plan that makes money by investing in stocks. You have a savings account in a bank that makes interest by the bank investing your money and giving you a percent of the profit.

Yeah, and not good enough ones to sustain you without labor for the rest of your life.

Celebrities have capital, they control land, or a company, or own intellectual property, and they do not have to sell their labor for a wage, that many continue to do so is entirely incidental. There's a difference between the contents of my savings account (as of right now, about $0.35, if you're curious) and the vast amount of stored up savings, controlling stock interests, and money tied up in real estate that most celebrities have.

[chimx]

Yeah, and not good enough ones to sustain you without labor for the rest of your life.

Celebrities have capital, they control land, or a company, or own intellectual property, and they do not have to sell their labor for a wage, that many continue to do so is entirely incidental. There's a difference between the contents of my savings account (as of right now, about $0.35, if you're curious) and the vast amount of stored up savings, controlling stock interests, and money tied up in real estate that most celebrities have.

Quantity of worth doesn't define the nature of class, but rather our relationship to the means of production. If a rich person owns tools of production and is able to reproduce capital, then that is why they are a capitalist -- not because they are rich.

Not that there should necessarily be some sort of moral outrage at capitalists. If you'll remember, Friedrich Engels was a capitalist of a multinational linen company. Marx also came from bourgeois roots. This is probably one of the reasons they said that as class struggle develops, some members of the bourgeoisie will struggle with workers and for socialism -- not against it.

In my opinion, having an "i hate the rich" attitude is anti-materialist and counter-productive.

[mel]

Quantity of worth doesn't define the nature of class, but rather our relationship to the means of production. If a rich person owns tools of production and is able to reproduce capital, then that is why they are a capitalist -- not because they are rich.

Which I said earlier in the thread, but I think to find somebody who is both rich and not a private property owner is rare to say the least.

[shadowmare]

Define "Celebrity"
Movie Stars and Musicians would almost always be Proletariat or Capitalist
However there are others like Lenin who you might call a "Celebrity" and yet actually did some worthwile and hopefully long lasting things for the world
In my opinion, you aren't worthy of long lasting admiration from the public unless you do something that would sacrifice life and limb, or at least your "freedom" (Quotes intentional since many of us no doubt live under the Capitalist pigs) and not look like an idiot, for the good of someone or something beyond yourself

[Lolshevik]

So then chimx, would it be accurate to say that most celebrities are proletarians technically, but by being part of the labor aristocracy, would side with capital in times of decisive class conflict, unless they were individually enlightened like Engels, etc, were?

[chimx]

Presumably. That is why a distinction was made by Bakunin and Engels 150 years ago.

But I don't think it is wise to assume that they will abandon their class roots necessarily because of any money they may have come into. Celebrities that honored the writing guild's strike a couple years back was an obvious sign of solidarity and shows who they really considered to be their peers.

[Revy]

They are union members who sell their labor for a wage, making them proletarian. Their wage, however, exceeds the value of their labor, making them part of a labor aristocracy.

Agreed.

[Revy]

Presumably. That is why a distinction was made by Bakunin and Engels 150 years ago.

But I don't think it is wise to assume that they will abandon their class roots necessarily because of any money they may have come into. Celebrities that honored the writing guild's strike a couple years back was an obvious sign of solidarity and shows who they really considered to be their peers.

" I think socialism would be a good thing. I've never read Karl Marx, but maybe I should" - Elliott Gould, being interviewed during the writers' strike by the World Socialist Web Site.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would agree that most are clear-cut members of the bourgeoisie (because they have the capital to invest in finance, real estate or industry, and most take advantage of that), not because they retain intellectual property rights (most actors/actresses wouldn't) which are by and large sold under contract to the studios which hire them.

I suppose the bourgeoisie classification would override my classification above, but only on the condition "most take advantage of that."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speaking of the labor aristocracy, where can I find the technical definition of this? I just know that it came from Lenin, and that he meant by it (I think), all the proletarians in first world countries who have a "cushion" in the form of super-exploitation of the third world proletariat.

A reworking of this definition would be inadequate to apply to celebrities. I'm leaning towards just considering them bourgeois outright, though chimx's comment on this gives me pause.

Why would "fitting in with those in the wage labour system who don't advance society's labour power or capabilities - between the underclasses on the one hand and the proletariat on the other" not be an adequate redefinition? Marx had at least two definitions of "class" in his lifetime. I just happen to base my class analysis (the CSR pamphlet doesn't mention "labour aristocracy," though :( ) on the lesser known definition.

The self-employed would also fit into this redefined labour aristocracy.

[BabylonHoruv]

They are union members who sell their labor for a wage, making them proletarian. Their wage, however, exceeds the value of their labor, making them part of a labor aristocracy.


They are actually part of a Guild, not a Union. There is an important difference.

[chimx]

They are actually part of a Guild, not a Union. There is an important difference.

It is a labor union. Actors belong to the Screen Actor's Guild, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, the same federation I belong to as a union member.

The west-coast screen writer's guild, while still a labor union, does not affiliate with the AFL-CIO. They have their own individual International.

[Lolshevik]

Why would "fitting in with those in the wage labour system who don't advance society's labour power or capabilities - between the underclasses on the one hand and the proletariat on the other" not be an adequate redefinition? Marx had at least two definitions of "class" in his lifetime. I just happen to base my class analysis (the CSR pamphlet doesn't mention "labour aristocracy," though :( ) on the lesser known definition.

The self-employed would also fit into this redefined labour aristocracy.

When I made that comment, I wasn't aware of the origins of the term "labor aristocracy." My bad. : )